I don't disagree with anything specifically, but think this is naive. First, startups are deeply intertwined with monopoly. Financially, a startup is a small c

I don't disagree with anything specifically, but think this is naive. First, startups are deeply intertwined with monopoly. Financially, a startup is a small chance of huge success. The ultimate win scenario is becoming a monopoly like Microsoft or Amazon did. The next best thing is being acquired by one. If they can't become monopolies, there's a lot less reason to fund, found or work at a startup. A startup that plans to participate in a competitive market is low potential. Making great apps isn't a good startup goal. A proper startup goal is to make the appstore. Do startups, as we know them, even exist without monopolies? Second... Abstract economics is abstract. Creative destruction doesn't exist in the way that economic theories want it to. It's almost non-existent at the enterprise/monopoly level. How many S&P 500 really become defunct? Creative destruction doesn't exist here unless you really squint. It exists in some places. Restaurants rise and file rapidly. So do barbers and many types of small business. Creative destruction definitely happens to startups. Most die. Overall though, if take a cold empirical look... Creative destruction is orders of magnitude stronger or weaker, depending on sector. It's effectively a non existent dynamic for Microsoft, Loyds & such. You could argue that creative destruction is out of control in other sectors. The theory though, the theory abstracts all of this away. A firm is a firm. Parts manufacturer, energy supplier, record label or software company. The gradients of reality outweigh the abstract description. This is true about a lot of economic concepts. "Normal" economics like market determined prices, broadly representing marginal costs in an industry... those are inapplicable concepts to most tech giants. They're not really applicable to government adjacent industries, creative industries, financial industries... I don't mean that you can't use "normal economics" to describe these industries. I just mean that it's less describing a textile or commodity electronics manufacturer this way. One striking difference between many monopolies of today and those of the past is the alternative. The alternative to Twitter or Facebook is simply "no Twitter or Facebook." If Toyota stops making cars, either someone else makes more or everyone has less. If facebook stop making facebook... social media is not scarce. People will still consume as much social media as they want. This isn't like Bell. A court will never have to analyze Facebook's business in order to reorganise it into viable smaller companies.